oldiesman

But who defines what "excessive conformity" is? I think each person has their own idea of what it is; that is why its difficult to have an answer to this question. As I see it, the individual making the decision decides what for him/herself what is "excessive conformity". Thus, the individual decides for himself whether it is legalism or not. For instance, there are some folks who thought (or think now) that praying, reading the word, working with believers, starting fellowship on time, most of Christianity etc. is excessive conformity. Others think different. Some of those who are not engaged in a religion may feel that those who are, are engaged in legalism. Others may think different. Who's correct? Everyone is! Everyone has their own ideas, everyone's ideas are right in their own eyes, and those ideas may vary at various times. I once thought that the religion of my youth was full of legalism and bondage. Today, I have a different opinion, although for someone else that might not hold true. Thanks for your opinion.

IF one CHOOSES to conform, is it legalism? Here's the definition of legalism from Merriam Webster online: 1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice> According to the definition it is legalism if it restricts free choice. So again, what if the person CHOOSES to conform? Is it legalism?

I think it's too general a question. For instance, some people think that praying and reading the bible is a chore, and being asked or encouraged to do so is legalism. Seems to be up to the individual to define it.

My experience has been that when I allowed others to control my life and agenda, my life and agenda was controlled by others. However when I decided not to let others dictate my day to day (or week to week or month to month) actions, (i.e. most of my time in twi) none of my actions were dictated or controlled by others. The exceptions for me were WOW and CORPS. At those times, I voluntarily and willfully relinquished my will to others and went with those programs as best as I could.

I would say, generally, in the mid-1990's when you couldn't go to the grocery store alone because of the 2 by 2 rule. :D Contrast this to January of 1976 when in the six corps, I asked Craig if I could hitchhike ALONE from headquarters to Emporia because my hitchhike buddy and I didn't get along. (Hitchhiking in twos was required.) He agreed to it, and took practically 1/2 the time for me to get back (18 hours as opposed to over 30 hours getting there.) I also think legalism can be in the mind of the beholder if one defines it that way. I was once accused of being legalistic by a twig coordinator, when in the early 1990's shortly before my departure from twi, I insisted that my fellowship start on time instead of 1/2 hour later to get mellow and wait for everyone to arrive. It wasn't legalism I was insisting on it was honesty. You say you're starting at 10:00 then start at 10:00. But they called it legalism.

Perhaps because the word "murder" can mean intent to kill. Here there was no intent, therefore no need to use the word murder, let alone alleged.

Excellent! Thank you Pawtucket and the moderators!

I didn't read Mrs. Wierwille's book , simply asking the question if there's a book that documents the alleged doctrine of the Way International, of spousal beating.

Skyrider, Yes by all means let's post facts. Accordingly, to the best of your knowledge, do any of the books written about the Way (I'm thinking of two offhand -- "The Cult that Snapped" and Mrs. Wierwilles book -- but ANY other expositive book about the Way as well) assert a Way International doctrine condoning the physical beating of disobedient wives by their husbands?

1Peter 5:7 "Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you."

Yes I think we shouldn't ignore WD posts and again I'd like to remind posters that WhiteDove hasn't called anyone a liar. I think the essence of what he believes is this: When someone invokes the "This was Way Doctrine" belief, WhiteDove is merely asking for verifiable and documentable proof that the belief has some teeth. Peoples OPINIONS about it vary and its a very serious allegation that the Way International teaches wife beating. That is why it is and should be thought of as an opinion only, for everyones sake. Let me be clear on where I stand on this one: If someone was in a meeting where they said that a Way leader said in the meeting that it was ok for a husband to administer a physical beating to a disobedient wife, I would consider that a fact. They were there. It happened. However if someone then said that as a result of their experience, they believe that wife beating was Way Doctrine, I would consider that statement to be an OPINION. If someone wants to say unequivocally that the Way International taught that wife beating was acceptable and ok, I think one really is asking for some serious disagreement by a lot of folks. That'd mean among other things that we all tolerated wife beating! You can't throw out that allegation and expect folks to shut up and blindly agree. Let's get real. To sum up MY belief, it is my opinion that not every statement or concept was approved by the Trustees, and I can't imagine in my wildest dreams them approving and teaching as ministry doctrine that wife beating is ok.

Happy Hannukah, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwandza to all :)

I can't tell by their fruit because they manifested both good and bad fruit. I only know that Gods promise in his Word, that those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved, apply to everyone including VP and LCM.

Tom, I was taught from The Way that if you had a problem with management, you discuss it with the management. Accordingly, I have a stack of letters from hq , part of my Way Memorabilia file, that answers the questions I had with Way doctrines and policies. I needed clarification and got it, and btw, NOT ALWAYS to my satisfaction. If I had been in the room where it was spoken that the husband is entitled to beat a disobedient wife, you can bet that I'd have questioned that directly with the Trustees. And I know folks who would have probably done exactly the same, being extremely sensitive to and experiencing first hand spousal abuse issues.

I don't see WhiteDove calling anyone dishonest. His opinion is "peoples opinions are not the same as Way doctrine from The Way International" and "just because one was involved with the Way does not mean they always spoke on their behalf." It would appear that WhiteDove's opinion which he is fully entitled to is, that just because a leader of the Way may say something, doesn't make it "Way Doctrine and Policy". I didn't see where he said that the statement by the leader was not made, or that the person recollecting the statement here at GS was lying about what they heard.

JeffSjo, As I see it, WhiteDove (or anyone else) should not be guilted into being quiet because he's not helping an angry or hurt someone get through a problem. That is not necessarily the purpose of the forum, to help someone. The forums are for rendering opinions, by anyone, and sometimes there will be huge disagreements about those opinions. I think a proper response is to challenge the opinion if you wish; rather than issuing an ultimatum to "help people or be quiet."

It worked... thanks Tom!

I've heard it taught, many times, that the wife should submit to the husband, be in subjection because the husband is the head of the wife. Various scriptures were used, among them were the following: I was out of the room when they taught a doctrine that if the wife didn't obey the husband, then the husband is entitled to administer a physical beating to his wife. For myself, it is logical to assume that if the physical beating by the husband to his disobedient wife were a doctrine encouraged by twi, then twi also would have shared some scripture backup, as this was their usual custom. Accordingly does anyone who attended these women's meetings remember a bible verse or two that twi used to condone the husband's physical beating of his disobedient wife? Did they share any verses that would suggest it were ok?

Yes it is an offshoot.

The impression I get is that Nathan is fellowshipping with CFF, but I could be wrong.

I have a youtube question: could someone list the step by step procedure for posting a youtube clip on the GS site (or any other site) without the whole youtube webpage? i.e, just the clip alone? Thanks!

Welcome Nathan. Thanks for the invite and if I were in your neighborhood, I would like to stop by.

I still view the folks at twi as God's children, members of the body of Christ just like we are, as opposed to bastards.

cman, please stop the namecalling and personal attacks. I have reported your post to the mods.

I agree. What I'd do is try to calmly reason with the person first, one on one. If that didn't work, I start yelling back. If that didn't work, I'd seek marriage counselling. If that didn't work, I'd leave. By that time, one would probably be thankful to leave anyway.